FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 27 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LARRY LLOYD, No. 14-35213
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:12-cv-05913-RJB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
BRIAN YANKEY, Correctional Officer;
et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Robert J. Bryan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 18, 2015**
Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Washington state prisoner Larry Lloyd appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs while he was a pretrial detainee. We have
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Colwell v. Bannister,
763 F.3d 1060, 1065 (9th Cir. 2014), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Lloyd’s deliberate
indifference claim because Lloyd failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact
as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent in treating his finger injury.
See id. at 1066, 1068 (prison officials are deliberately indifferent only if they know
of and disregard an excessive risk to inmate health; a difference of opinion does
not amount to deliberate indifference); see also Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz.,
609 F.3d 1011, 1017 (9th Cir. 2010) (the Eighth Amendment deliberate
indifference standard applies to pretrial detainees alleging deliberate indifference
under the Fourteenth Amendment); Cousins v. Lockyer, 568 F.3d 1063, 1070 (9th
Cir. 2009) (failure to follow internal state prison policies does not rise to the level
of a federal constitutional violation).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Lloyd’s equal
protection claim because Lloyd failed to raise a triable dispute as to whether
defendants intentionally treated him differently from others similarly situated
without a rational basis, or discriminated against him based on his membership in a
protected class. See Vill. of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000) (per
curiam) (elements of an equal protection “class of one” claim); Barren v.
2 14-35213
Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194-95 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (elements of a § 1983
equal protection claim).
We do not consider Lloyd’s conspiracy allegations because they were raised
for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir.
2009) (per curiam).
We reject Lloyd’s contention that the district court abused its discretion in
denying his request for judicial notice because the district court docket does not
reflect that Lloyd filed such a request.
Lloyd’s request to clarify the composition of the record, filed on July 13,
2015, is granted. The record consists of all the filings pursuant to Fed. R. App. P.
10(a).
AFFIRMED.
3 14-35213